Capitol Planning Region, Connecticut property tax

ACS 5-year median real estate taxes paid (table B25103) divided by ACS 5-year median value of owner-occupied housing units (table B25077), county-wide. This is a ratio of two independently estimated medians — not the median of the ratio, and not a rate any parcel is billed. It reflects the actual mix of overlapping districts, exemptions and assessment caps as experienced by owner-occupants, and it lags: a 5-year sample centres about two and a half years before its end date.

Layer 1 of the county property-tax corpus: a MEASURED baseline from ACS 2020-2024 5-year, not a published rate. No statutory rate, assessment ratio or exemption has been collected for these counties yet, so nothing here should be read as what a particular property would be billed.

WHY PROVISIONAL. The statutes were read in full from the General Assembly's year-pinned 2025 revision and its 2026 Supplement (the edition that carries 2025-session changes), and the history notes were checked against the 1 October 2025 assessment date. But (1) the OLR reports cited here are legislative analyses (tier 2), not law; (2) Hartford's 36.75% comes from the city's own publications — its FY2027 adopted budget (hosted by OPM for the MARB, but authored by the city) and its Tax Collector page, which gives the FY2027 mill rates and "this year ... 36.75%" — and no state publication of the ratio was found; the same 36.75% appears for FY2025, so the ratio has not moved for at least three lists; (3) the §12-170aa ceiling is taken from OPM's booklet, but its indexed intermediate brackets were not collected, and the §12-81g limit for the October 2025 list is corroborated only by municipal assessors' pages; and (4) local adoption of every local option here is uncollected. The 2014 OLR analysis is cited only for the identification of Hartford as the §12-62r municipality; its bill text is not current law — §12-62r as served in the 2025 revision (last amended by P.A. 24-151) is. THE SCHEMA QUESTION. Three places where Connecticut does not fit the types. (a) Motor vehicles are a real tax base with their own capped rate but no PropertyClass member; the §12-71e cap is a `rate-limit` with an empty `appliesTo`, and its note says what it binds. (b) Hartford's residential ratio is mandated by statute for exactly one municipality, which is neither `assessment-ratio` (state-set for the whole state) nor quite `local-option-classification` (a locality's own ordinance); the second was chosen because it tells a consumer the variation lives at the municipality and must be carried there. (c) §12-81(20) scales by disability RATING, not by value, and §12-81g layers an income-dependent multiple on (19) and (20), so both are recorded at their statewide floor with the schedule in notes. Data oddities seen in OPM's FY2027 table: Canterbury reports 0 for both rates (not yet filed, not a zero-tax town), and Bridgeport reports a motor vehicle rate of 31.75 above its 27.95 real-property rate after its 2025 revaluation, which the post-1 July 2025 §12-71e(b) proviso does not allow. P.A. 26-68 §219 adds §12-71e(f), letting Bridgeport set a vehicle rate at or above its real-property rate (max 32.46), but OLR 2026-R-0076 says it is "effective October 1, 2026, and applicable to assessment years starting on or after that date" — the October 2026 list, not this one. So the row is either unauthorized for this list or rests on a validation not found. Unresolved; do not treat either row as authoritative without the town's own rate.